Re: [Idr] [E] Re: 回复：CAR/CT merged document - Closed thread

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Robert:

I realized I answered this on private email, but not to the wider group.  All of this was discussed at IETF-114 and IETF-115.

The synopsis is:

  *   Experimental process polishes the diamond in the rough (in IDR WG) while allowing the draft to be fielded.
  *    IETF requires that standards be designed to be interoperable.  We have an interoperability document (draft-ietf-idr-diffract) in IDR.

There is nothing block either CAR or CT to complete their work except resolving known issues.  (see IDR github).

Cheers, Sue

From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 11:45 AM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[e-mail]>; Jalil, Luay <luay.jalil=[e-mail]>; Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao) <dhrao=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] [E] Re: 回复：CAR/CT merged document - Closed thread

Hi Sue, > If no common proposal exists, we’ll stay with the experimental process. Would that be "forever" ? I was perhaps highly mistaken to understand that point of publishing any propos
External ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
  Report This Email<https://protection.inkyphishfence.com/report?id=bmV0b3JnMTA1ODY5MTIvc2hhcmVzQG5kemguY29tL2FjN2IyYTYyMTAwMmMzMWU4N2EzM2FjNmU0YzU5OTRkLzE2NzY2NTIzMjcuMTU=#key=ed0b0e39bb2c4e90558319de4ec0d611>  FAQ<https://www.godaddy.com/help/report-email-with-advanced-email-security-40813>  GoDaddy Advanced Email Security, Powered by INKY<https://www.inky.com/protection-by-inky>

Hi Sue,

> If no common proposal exists, we’ll stay with the experimental process.

Would that be "forever" ?

I was perhaps highly mistaken to understand that point of publishing any proposal as experimental aims to allow it to be deployed and gain maturity. Then transition to the standard track.

To me it was like taking a diamond and allowing it to be a little bit more polished by the forces of real operations.

There should be no bearing in that process flow on any alternate proposals as they can always pop up left and right. But from what I am reading those alternate documents can become blockers - with direct enforcement that you either converge to common doc or stay experimental for good :)

Cheers,
Robert




On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 5:16 PM Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
This mail thread on IDR is closed.

The IDR chairs informal query has found no consensus among the authors teams to form a design to work on a proposed standard draft in parallel with the experimental drafts.  To form a functional design team for a proposed standard draft,  we need tentative high-level solution that the operators, the author teams, and the IDR WG can approve.

The high-level proposal the IDR chairs made has been rejected by CAR authors.

As discussed during the adoption call, the publication of the experimental drafts take the following steps:

1. issues loaded in github (for transparency)

2. Each issue resolved by:
a) authors suggesting solution,
b) Each solution being discussed in an IDR mail thread,
c) Consensus being reached on each solution

3. Updated draft approved.

4.  The experimental draft being able to support an interoperability solution.
    The current interoperability solution is: draft-haas-idr-bgp-diffact.

At IETF-116, we will see if WG has any straw-man proposals to start a design team for a proposed standard.

  *   SRv6 based common solution,
  *   Common solution for CAR/CT.

If we find a common proposal, we’ll start the design team process.
If no common proposal exists, we’ll stay with the experimental process.

Sue

From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 3:07 AM
To: Jalil, Luay <luay.jalil=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao) <dhrao=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [E] Re: 回复：CAR/CT merged document


From a vendor perspective, I also think avoiding RDs and RTs in the underlay (or base router instance) simplifies transport procedures.
Thanks.
Jorge